On Sun, 23 Jun 2002 17:45, Peter Donald wrote: > At 05:36 PM 6/23/2002 +1000, you wrote: > >On Sun, 23 Jun 2002 16:35, Peter Donald wrote: > > > At 10:23 AM 6/23/2002 +1000, you wrote: > > > >What do you think of getting rid of the DataType interface? We'd keep > > > > the role, but drop the requirement that a data-type must implement > > > > the interface. > > > > > > Im not a fan of it - but you already knew that. In effect if we were to > > > put this in we would be special casing the whole system. It would be > > > better to do > > > > > > if( datatype ) doMagic(); > > > else doNormalStuff(); > > > >Um, where would it be better to do this? It's not real clear. > > No idea - thats your area of expertise ;) > > I had a brief look and it looks like the only place where role class is > actually enforced is in InstantiatingServiceManager. Is there anywhere else > that it is enforced?
MultiSourceTypeFactory also does a check. Probably should be happening a little closer to TypeManager, I guess. The check is skipped if RoleInfo.getImplementationClass() returns null. So, I was thinking of adding something to the meta-info for the data-type role, so that the class ends up getting set to null. The policy is not hardcoded in the container, but is defined by framework. And being in the meta-info, can be changed easy enough. How does that sound? -- Adam -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
